Utilities question

On 03/22/2015 10:43 PM, Nil wrote:
On 22 Mar 2015, T wrote in alt.windows7.general:

I have seen it do more harm than good

I've seen penicillin do more harm than good. I've seen the Bible do
more harm than good. I've seen apples do more harm than good. I've seen
cute little puppy dogs do more harm than good.

What's your point?


Exactly what I said. Never saw it help. Have seen it hurt.

On 03/23/2015 08:06 AM, FredW wrote:
I did not understand why you compared CCleaner with Defraggler.
But you only mentioned two products of the same company.

I was making the point that they had other good
products that I liked, even though I did not care
for the one. I general, I like Piriform as a company.

On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 23:36:41 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:

On 22/03/2015 23:26, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 23:02:19 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

Declaring CCleaner to be "crapware" is rather akin to thinking you don't need to
eat your vegetables.

*Please* don't make me eat the broccoli!

Fun! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTVs_t7hvbU :-)

Indeed!

Dexter seems like a neat "guy".

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 23:37:30 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 16:26:00 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 23:02:19 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

Declaring CCleaner to be "crapware" is rather akin to thinking you don't need to
eat your vegetables.

*Please* don't make me eat the broccoli!

I wonder how most broccoli haters, who survive a bout with colon cancer, feel
about that most maligned of vegetables after they pay the medical bills?

In truth, I like broccoli and most other crucifers, but not Brussels
sprouts.

My remark bent the truth a bit for humor (or at least attempted humor,
which I assume is only a misdemeanor).

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 18:14:28 -0700, T wrote:

On 03/22/2015 04:26 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 23:02:19 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

Declaring CCleaner to be "crapware" is rather akin to thinking you don't need to
eat your vegetables.

*Please* don't make me eat the broccoli!


Hi Gene,

That is okay. I will not make you eat broccoli. You
are totally safe with me. Really. Absolutely. You
are completely safe. You can T r u s t me.

Really.

-T

Now to force feed Gene some asparagus wrapped in kale!
Hey, I only said he was safe from broccoli!

:-)

OK, now you've done it. I am left with no choice but to report you to
the Human Rights Commission.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 21:20:40 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:03:02 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 23:37:30 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 16:26:00 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 23:02:19 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

Declaring CCleaner to be "crapware" is rather akin to thinking you don't need to
eat your vegetables.

*Please* don't make me eat the broccoli!

I wonder how most broccoli haters, who survive a bout with colon cancer, feel
about that most maligned of vegetables after they pay the medical bills?

In truth, I like broccoli and most other crucifers, but not Brussels
sprouts.

My remark bent the truth a bit for humor (or at least attempted humor,
which I assume is only a misdemeanor).

Uh, good to know, just in case you are ever invited for dinner. Although, when
we have company, the food served is usually artery clogging and decadent.

Thus preferable :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On 23/03/2015 20:58, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 23:36:41 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:

On 22/03/2015 23:26, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 23:02:19 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

Declaring CCleaner to be "crapware" is rather akin to thinking you don't need to
eat your vegetables.

*Please* don't make me eat the broccoli!

Fun! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTVs_t7hvbU :-)

Indeed!

Dexter seems like a neat "guy".


Thanks for taking a peek! ;-)

On 03/23/2015 02:06 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 18:14:28 -0700, T wrote:

On 03/22/2015 04:26 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 23:02:19 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

Declaring CCleaner to be "crapware" is rather akin to thinking you don't need to
eat your vegetables.

*Please* don't make me eat the broccoli!


Hi Gene,

That is okay. I will not make you eat broccoli. You
are totally safe with me. Really. Absolutely. You
are completely safe. You can T r u s t me.

Really.

-T

Now to force feed Gene some asparagus wrapped in kale!
Hey, I only said he was safe from broccoli!

:-)

OK, now you've done it. I am left with no choice but to report you to
the Human Rights Commission.


LOL!

Kale: EEEEEEEYUK !!!

On 23 Mar 2015, T wrote in alt.windows7.general:

Exactly what I said. Never saw it help. Have seen it hurt.

Then you obviously don't know how to use it.

On 03/23/2015 10:30 PM, Nil wrote:
On 23 Mar 2015, T wrote in alt.windows7.general:

Exactly what I said. Never saw it help. Have seen it hurt.

Then you obviously don't know how to use it.


I thought it was crapware. And that it did not help.
I have tried to use it once or twice, but ...

I also like to do clean ups manually so I know exactly
what is going on, especially *.tmp files. I love to know
who has file locks on those that won't remove.

In message , Mayayana
writes:
[]
Another point worth noting is that cache is, for
the most part, an outdated concept. Many sites
now assemble a webpage as it's called, changing
content, ads, etc in accord with information from
cookies and script. Static pages are becoming less
common. Even in the case of static pages, the need
to cache them is long gone. Likewise with pre-fetching.
They're both privacy risks, both take up space and
both are irrelevant on a highspeed connection.

As you say, "for the most part". There are still sites where the
_server_ end is slow/overloaded, where caching can save time. (Though in
such cases prefetching is _counter_productive.)

I set my Pale Moon/FF cache limit to zero and
have done for years.

You probably don't use many such sites.


--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Bother,"saidPoohwhenhisspacebarrefusedtowork.

In message , Mayayana
writes:
[]
Sooo... You don't eat vegetables? I'm curious whether
pro-Paleo or anti-gluten is the better way to protect
one's system from malware... I was once a fruitarian.
Does heavy kale use and comfrey tea addiction in the
70s help against system bloat in the 10's?... What if I
don't eat brocolli but do use CCleaner on the vegetarian
setting? Can I then still have barbecued chicken or must
I only eat lean white meat?... It's so confusing. No wonder
one needs to be an engineer to understand this technology
stuff.


Excellent! I for one appreciate the humous (****BILI) in the above!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Bother,"saidPoohwhenhisspacebarrefusedtowork.

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 18:14:28 -0700, T wrote:

On 03/22/2015 04:26 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 23:02:19 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

Declaring CCleaner to be "crapware" is rather akin to thinking you don't need to
eat your vegetables.

*Please* don't make me eat the broccoli!


Hi Gene,

That is okay. I will not make you eat broccoli. You
are totally safe with me. Really. Absolutely. You
are completely safe. You can T r u s t me.

Really.

-T

Now to force feed Gene some asparagus wrapped in kale!
Hey, I only said he was safe from broccoli!

:-)

OK, now you've done it. I am left with no choice but to report you to
the Human Rights Commission.

Or the EU's Cultivar Committee..they probably want in on the action and
require everyone to have an optional cruciferous choice before taking
that first bite.

--
....winston
msft mvp consumer apps

| As you say, "for the most part". There are still sites where the
| _server_ end is slow/overloaded, where caching can save time. (Though in
| such cases prefetching is _counter_productive.)
|
| I set my Pale Moon/FF cache limit to zero and
| have done for years.
|
| You probably don't use many such sites.

I'm curious what sites you're thinking of. I see
some sites that are a bit slow, perhaps because
they're pulling in from numerous other sites, but
those are mostly big sites that are commercial and
are probably issuing a no-cache directive or using
a no-cache META tag, anyway.
In other words, caching won't help with large
commercial sites where pages change frequently.

Extreme bloat has become very common very
quickly. Frequently changing content has also become
very common. Many big websites update in terms of
hours or even minutes. Many pages are customized
using script to show a particular price only to you.
Google does the same in trying to second guess what
you, personally, want to find online. With the extreme
use of script that's developed, the pages of many
corporate sites are really sizable software programs
customized as the page loads. The same is true of
my own website. It's simple and mainly static, but I
dynamically load part of the page using PHP, in order
to provide the same page to both IE and other browsers.
Based on looking at my own server logs, that seems to
prevent anyone from getting a 304 response. In other
words, since the page is dynamically generated (which
most are these days) it's always a "new" page,
last modified a second ago, even though the content
hasn't changed.

I just downloaded the Slashdot main
page. It's a very simple (and I might note, ugly)
website, yet the download was 1.3 MB! One file
is 785 KB. It's "named" with a 32-character GUID.
The file appears to be a jquery javascript "library"
coming from ooyala.com and intended for use in
showing video. By naming it with a GUID the download
can be used for tracking, but that also means the
whole 3/4 MB file will be downloaded fresh every
time it's used.

Not long ago, 100 KB was too big for all the files
in a webpage. Now 2.5 MB isn't unusual for webpages
with very little in the way of graphics. And those files
might be pulled from numerous sites. One slow site
can make it drag. But in those cases, as I noted, it's
likely that the page is not caching, anyway, or that
the files -- like the GUID-named jquery -- are uniquely
named.

I may see more zippy loading because I almost
always disable script, iframes and 3rd-party images,
but I doubt that many sites are actually slow these
days. The standard webmasters' rule, which I came
across recently, is that a page needs to load in 1/4
second or people will move on. (!)

Given all of the above, I find it hard to believe that
anything other than possibly a rare oddball site is going
to benefit from caching. (That would be something like
a private site, on a small server, with very large images,
static pages and no dynamic serving via PHP, ASP, etc.)

On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:45:50 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

Windows does a good job of keeping the registry up-to-date, but doesn't tidy up
after itself very well. Over time, as you install and uninstall applications,
the registry can become littered with old entries.


Yes, but it doesn't matter.


These can cause error messages



I've never seen any.


and slow the computer down.


Access to the registry is random, so those unneeded entries do not
slow anything down.


If you want ensure that your PC functions
correctly, and remains fast, you'll need to clean it up.


I strongly disagree.